Gordon Bennett:Eejits. I was under the impression that if you get to carry a deadly weapon then you accept extra responsibility to ensure that you obey all related laws. Now they've been arrested and if there is any justice will lose the right to carry a gun having now committed a gun related offence.

I don't usually come down on the side of the gun-nuts, but...

There are too many laws to know them all. The old, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a weapon of the elites against the masses.

If the police get to carry guns wherever and whenever they want, so should the citizenry. There should be no "super citizenry" but this is what police have effectively become, above the law, and usually beyond reproach.

Frankly, I would rather see police be nominated and elected within their communities, with term limits. It should be a community service, not a career, save for a much smaller group of specialized professionals. We definitely need something to remind police that they are and "us" and not "us vs. them" in our society.

Statistics prove you are far more likely to be wrongly shot by a police officer than a gun-toting citizen--regardless of the color of his neck.

The rule should be, "No harm, no foul, you get a warning." We live in a society where it is easy enough to warn someone and attach it to their record, so there is proof they have been "educated" to a law. Habitual and repeat offenders will be caught and then punishment or fines may indeed be merited.

It is the mark of a totalitarian regime to be able to arrest you for any infractions of the law, regardless of intent. (Read Silvergate's "Three Felonies a Day")

If you are the one who outs yourself with good intent, one should not be arrested. One should be warned and directed to immediately correct the situation. Our laws should not be "gotcha" laws, nor should they be to generate revenue for jail owners, nor used to justify the ever expanding police states.

Arrest should be limited to those showing a clear threat to society. Merely possessing a weapon is not a threat. Especially one politely asking if there is a place to store it when they see a sign saying they are not allowed to have one on the premises.

The tourist was obviously not of a "criminal mind" arrest is completely unnecessary here. Why we are so excited to spend upwards of $50,000 a year to incarcerate people, but not give children pre-school, students a reasonably priced college education, and have minimum wages of employees liked to maximum wages of capitalists? We are pretty screwed up about what we spend our tax dollars on.

We arrest far too many people and deny far too many people their liberties in our nation for victimless crimes. We are no longer the home of the free, but the home of the "Pending detention and incarceration at the whim of arbitrary authority." Not to mention, home of the heavily taxed to pay for the security/police state.

HotWingConspiracy:dittybopper: Tell you what: In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

Deal?

No way. You want to take away regulatory power from the local government in exchange for something we're going to get eventually anyway.

I say no way because eventually we'll get national reciprocity, regardless of what metropolitan areas want.

JesseL:demaL-demaL-yeH: fredklein: demaL-demaL-yeH: fredklein: WalkingCarpet: , the main purpose of a firearm is to kill another living being.

Wrong. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet at a lethal velocity when triggered. Where that bullet goes and what happens because of it is up to the user.FTFY

Any velocity can be lethal. A boulder approaching you at 1mph can crush you if you don't get out of the way. So what you added is meaningless.

You have an multiple-boulder capacity, handheld, concealable boulder-launcher?Firearms are killing machines by design.

I'm sure it will come as a great comfort when someone beats you to death with a waffle iron, that it wasn't designed for killing.

Jesse, you misunderstand me. I have no beef with firearms.I have a beef with idiots with firearms.(Bonus points for being untrained, or, worse, trained incorrectly, exhibiting conflict-seeking behavior, immaturity, lacking cognizance that death is permanent, unwillingness to put in the time and effort to keep trained and ready, etc.)

If you aren't keenly aware that you're carrying a deadly weapon and that there are no takesies backsies once you've launched a bullet, you shouldn't touch firearms. (Hell, if you're that unaware, you shouldn't be trusted with rubber spatulas.)

/A waffle iron? Seriously? Who swings a waffle iron?//Dislocated shoulder or broken elbow.///Hard-headed and one of many brothers.

Beowoolfie:If he drove from Georgia, it's practically certain he also violated the laws on transporting guns through Maryland. A loaded pistol in the glove compartment there is a free GO TO JAIL card if a cop finds out.

DoctorCal:fredklein: Cagey B: fredklein: Skanque: Are you completely naive? You live in upstate NY and you don't know about the really strict gun laws in NYC?

Are you completely naive? You live in The United States and you don't know about the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment, even under the most recent interpretations by the Supreme Court, does not entitle a person to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access to all weapons or the use thereof.

"the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds to me like it DOES entitle a person (a member of "the People") to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access ("shall not be infringed") to all weapons or the use thereof.

Is a convicted felon also a person?

Yes. And I believe they should be allowed to own guns. Not while actually IN prison, of course, but after they are released. If they have served their time, they should have the same rights as anyone else. If it's too dangerous for them to have a gun, then they should still be in prison.Oh, and sentences for gunall crimes should be higher.

demaL-demaL-yeH:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Very well.I'll see your out-of-shape, overweight ass at drill Sunday. Have all your weapons, ammunition, and equipment there and ready for inspection: You will be held to military standards. Expect to be sore.

::sigh:: yet another person who doesn't know what "Militia" means.

A militia is a group of citizens who can, in times of trouble, take up arms to aid their country. Nothing there about being in the military. In fact, it's the opposite- the militia is made of CIVILIANS. So, no "military standards".

And the 2nd clearly states "The Right OF THE PEOPLE", and not "the right of the militia". So the right applies to everyone, not just the military, and not just the militia.

It's very strange then, that cars, which are not designed to kill (in fact, have many safety features to prevent injuries and deaths) kill just about as many people as guns, (which you claim are specifically designed to kill). If guns were indeed 'designed to kill', whoever designed them did a crappy job.

fredklein:demaL-demaL-yeH: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Very well.I'll see your out-of-shape, overweight ass at drill Sunday. Have all your weapons, ammunition, and equipment there and ready for inspection: You will be held to military standards. Expect to be sore.

::sigh:: yet another person who doesn't know what "Militia" means.

A militia is a group of citizens who can, in times of trouble, take up arms to aid their country. Nothing there about being in the military. In fact, it's the opposite- the militia is made of CIVILIANS. So, no "military standards".

And the 2nd clearly states "The Right OF THE PEOPLE", and not "the right of the militia". So the right applies to everyone, not just the military, and not just the militia.

I'll tell you what.After you have read and fully comprehended this.And this.And this.And this.Then we can have a nice discussion about what a militia is, what the Constitution says a militia is, how the Founders implemented the Militia, the Regulations prescribed by Congress, who belongs in the Militia, and which kind of military discipline militia members are subject to. (Maybe I ought to assign Virginia's Militia Ordinance, too. (Spoiler: Not showing up to drill gets you fined and flogged.)

Hint: I expect to see your overweight, history-ignorant and fact-bereft, out-of-shape, goat-smelling ass, gear, arms, and ammunition in formation, ready for inspection, and ready to drill Sunday morning at 00:30 right beside the Hoosier upthread. Ensure that you are showered and properly shave before you appear in my formation: You would not enjoy the remedial class on personal hygiene. You will be quizzed on the assigned readings. Your weapons and ammunition must meet the unit armorer's function and cleanliness standards.

It's very strange then, that cars, which are not designed to kill (in fact, have many safety features to prevent injuries and deaths) kill just about as many people as guns, (which you claim are specifically designed to kill). If guns were indeed 'designed to kill', whoever designed them did a crappy job.

Sure.Or, and I know this may come as a shock to you, personal vehicles are used much, much more often and extensively than personal firearms are.

Ah, another example of the great quality of repkrting, we've come to expect from the New York Post.

What a 39 year old man might look like:

New York Post: A dopey Georgia tourist thought it would be OK to walk into the Empire State Building with a loaded pistol but was arrested on the spot when he casually asked a security guard if there was somewhere he could store it, cops said.The 39 year-old Georgia man...

NY Daily News: Evon Allen, 79, who was trying to visit the observation deck, carried the firearm in his backpack, cops said.The bag was put through a metal detector at a security checkpoint, and the gun triggered the alarm shortly before 6 p.m.The Georgia man then told security he was carrying a weapon in the bag and said he had a permit, police said.

Sigh...:I don't usually come down on the side of the gun-nuts, but...There are too many laws to know them all. The old, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a weapon of the elites against the masses.

Oblio13:So this fellow didn't hurt anyone, didn't damage anything, and thought he was doing the right thing? Good thing we ruined his life and made him hate the authorities.

How are security guards and police supposed to know what he is thinking?Just take his word for it?For all you know, he could be a severely mentally ill person, who was planning to randomly fire at the street below.

Dansker:Oblio13: So this fellow didn't hurt anyone, didn't damage anything, and thought he was doing the right thing? Good thing we ruined his life and made him hate the authorities.

How are security guards and police supposed to know what he is thinking?Just take his word for it?For all you know, he could be a severely mentally ill person, who was planning to randomly fire at the street below.

Everyone should be in prison. After all, how do we know what they're thinking? Just take their word for it? They could be mentally ill.

Oblio13:Everyone should be in prison. After all, how do we know what they're thinking? Just take their word for it? They could be mentally ill.

Nice strawman.How do you know that this particular person, who was caught clearly violating a law, thought he was doing the right thing?Should everybody, who is caught illegally carrying a weapon, be let off as long as they promise they weren't going to use it?

Fano:Tommy Moo: You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.

skinink:Just an FYI for you tourists visiting NYC: the New York of Midnight Cowboy, Taxi Driver and Fort Apache the Bronx hasn't existed in decades. Most tourist areas are safe and in Times Square there's a big old police substation.

fredklein:DoctorCal: fredklein: Cagey B: fredklein: Skanque: Are you completely naive? You live in upstate NY and you don't know about the really strict gun laws in NYC?

Are you completely naive? You live in The United States and you don't know about the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment, even under the most recent interpretations by the Supreme Court, does not entitle a person to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access to all weapons or the use thereof.

"the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds to me like it DOES entitle a person (a member of "the People") to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access ("shall not be infringed") to all weapons or the use thereof.

Is a convicted felon also a person?

Yes. And I believe they should be allowed to own guns. Not while actually IN prison, of course, but after they are released. If they have served their time, they should have the same rights as anyone else. If it's too dangerous for them to have a gun, then they should still be in prison.Oh, and sentences for gunall crimes should be higher.

Well, good on you for being consistent. I won't claim I agree, though.

demaL-demaL-yeH:fredklein: demaL-demaL-yeH: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Very well.I'll see your out-of-shape, overweight ass at drill Sunday. Have all your weapons, ammunition, and equipment there and ready for inspection: You will be held to military standards. Expect to be sore.

::sigh:: yet another person who doesn't know what "Militia" means.

A militia is a group of citizens who can, in times of trouble, take up arms to aid their country. Nothing there about being in the military. In fact, it's the opposite- the militia is made of CIVILIANS. So, no "military standards".

And the 2nd clearly states "The Right OF THE PEOPLE", and not "the right of the militia". So the right applies to everyone, not just the military, and not just the militia.

I'll tell you what.After you have read and fully comprehended this.

Article VI. No State, without the consent of the united States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the united States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility,,,.

Um, okay...And this.

Chapter 1The arms and accoutrements of the officers, non-commoffioned officers, and foldiers, fhould be uniform throughout.The officers who exercife their functions on horfeback, are to be armed with fwords, the platoon officers with fwords and efpontoons, the non-commiffioned officers with fwords, firelocks and bayonets, and the soldiers with firelocks and bayonets.

I'll be sure to bring my fword when I report on horfeback. ::eyeroll::And this.

(Clause 16 - The Militia)

[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So, they can call me up. But they have to arm me (kinda hard to arm me if I can't keep or bear arms, eh?), and they have to pay me. Until they do that, I don't need to meet 'military standards'.

And this.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war

Pay me, or shut up about my having to meet military standards.

Then we can have a nice discussion about what a militia is, what the Constitution says a militia is, how the Founders implemented the Militia, the Regulations prescribed by Congress, who belongs in the Militia, and which kind of military discipline militia members are subject to. (Maybe I ought to assign Virginia's Militia Ordinance, too. (Spoiler: Not showing up to drill gets you fined and flogged.)

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline.

See you Sunday. Better get cracking on acquiring a musket: The armorer is a really demanding SOB.

Part of me really wants to agree with you, but neither side on the gun control issue want that to happen:

The pro-gun lobby would decry it as smacking of over-reaching federalism (AKA KENYAN SOSHULIZM!),while the anti-gun lobby would rightfully fear that it would undermine existing regulations because such ascheme would undermine existing laws elsewhere like NY's Sullivan Law (which is what I'm sure the touristwas booked on).

Personally, I favor keeping military-grade weaponry out of the hands of civilians even as I recognize thatthe interpretations of the 2nd Amendment as a back-stop check-and-balance against Federal tyranny havesome validity, even if the people who often make those interpretations tend to need to wear cups at theside of their mouths to catch the drool that come out.

Thunderboy:fredklein: DoctorCal: Well, good on you for being consistent. I won't claim I agree, though.

Look at my post above this one- EVERYONE is guilty of breaking the law. Felonies, even. Thus, you think NO ONE should have a gun?? Or just the unlucky one who get caught?

I am guilty of none of these.

You ARE guilty of something. For instance, there's a law that says you must obey the laws of every other country. Do you make your wife wear a burka? Then you violate the laws of several middle-eastern countries!Also, even ignoring the foreign laws, I find it hard to believe you have NEVER in your entire life set a single foot onto someone's property without getting formal permission to do so. (aka: trespassing) I also find it incredibly difficult to believe you have never assaulted someone. Ever tap someone on the shoulder to get their attention? Battery! Ever raise your voice? Noise ordinance violation, and possibly assault, depending on what you said.Step out onto the street without a green 'walk'; light? Jaywalking! Etc., Etc., Etc.

fredklein:"the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds to me like it DOES entitle a person (a member of "the People") to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access ("shall not be infringed") to all weapons or the use thereof.

Hint: Keeping and Bearing are both, by general use by gunnies, not 'using'. That's actually firing the weapon. Otherwise you're just keeping it and/or hauling it around.

demaL-demaL-yeH:I'll tell you what.After you have read and fully comprehended this.

Yeah, no true scotsman, huh.1. Articles of Confederation are no longer in effect.2. Not sure what obsolete military doctrine has to do with advancing your point, whatever it is.3. Blocked by the proxy at work(blog). Sorry4. Core point here is that every able-bodied male citizen is part of the militia; the definition has expanded since then. Also, you're expected to provide personal arms and at least a limited amount of ammunition for same. I think an updated version would be to require everybody to have at least a semi-automatic rifle, and preferably a full up M-4/16 'just in case'.

The first, by using 'the people' in the wording, makes the second part irrelevant. With a plain English reading of the 2nd, the militia and 'free state' part is simply an explanatory or declaratory part, while the second part (the right of the people...) is directive in it's 'shall not be infringed'. I'll grant that a legalese reading of the 2nd not only enables the federal government to regulate the militia, it practically mandates it encouraging effective militias. It does actually have programs - it's part of the justification for fitness programs in schools, the 'Civilian Marksmanship Program' that offers obsolete military rifles(only semi-autos) at reduced prices, etc...

Firethorn:fredklein: "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds to me like it DOES entitle a person (a member of "the People") to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access ("shall not be infringed") to all weapons or the use thereof.

Hint: Keeping and Bearing are both, by general use by gunnies, not 'using'. That's actually firing the weapon. Otherwise you're just keeping it and/or hauling it around.

But one cannot USE what one cannot KEEP or BEAR. KEEPING and BEARING are mentioned plainly for the purpose of USING, if necessary.

fredklein:But one cannot USE what one cannot KEEP or BEAR. KEEPING and BEARING are mentioned plainly for the purpose of USING, if necessary.

The constitution says 'keep and bear' can't be infringed. That doesn't mean that you can't have plenty of rules on firing them. BIG difference.

They have to give you access, ability to buy and what not. They don't have to let you use, IE fire it, outside of serious constraints. My limits - can't fire outside of a range during open hours(feel free to set up your own range), hunting, or self defense.

fredklein:You ARE guilty of something. For instance, there's a law that says you must obey the laws of every other country. Do you make your wife wear a burka? Then you violate the laws of several middle-eastern countries!

/citationneeded.jpg

Anyway, you are overlooking the main point - it's not about breaking the law, it's about being caught.

fredklein:Dansker: How do you know that this particular person, who was caught clearly violating a law, thought he was doing the right thing?